Report from the Grand Council: October, 2003
Directors of the SCA (and cc: Grand Council):
A. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY
The Grand Council began the quarter by discussing its own questions concerning reporting on the Non-Member Surcharge. Voting on questions presented went as follows:
Item 1: "All Fees collected by agents of the SCA Inc. under the
title of Non-Member Surcharge, or any other title relating to
membership status (including a differential Membership Discount
wherein non-members pay a higher fee), must be forwarded to the
Registry for the use of the SCA Corporation in their entirety.
Individual events may ask the Board for alternate
Raw Vote: YES=11 yes=3 abstain=1 no=3 NO=6
Overall: Yes = 14 No = 9 Difference = +5
Weighted Score: +10
Item 2: "That the Board of Directors, or their designated
officer, report quarterly to the membership how much money the NMS
has generated in the past quarter and year to date."
Raw Vote: YES=19 yes=5 abstain=0 no=1 NO=0
Overall: Yes = 24 No = 1 Difference = +23
Weighted Score: +42
Item 3: "When the budget shortfall the NMS is supposed to cover
is no longer a shortfall, that the NMS will be terminated as a fund
raiser for the corporation."
Raw Vote: YES=13 yes=5 abstain=0 no=3 NO=3
Overall: Yes = 18 No = 6 Difference = +12
Weighted Score: +22
Item 4: "If the Board chooses to continue the NMS after the
projected shortfall is covered, the amount surplus to the shortfall
be held separately from general revenues and balance of the fund be
Raw Vote: YES=10 yes=8 abstain=2 no=4 NO=1
Overall: Yes = 18 No = 5 Difference = +13
Weighted Score: +22
The Grand Council was in late August asked by the Board to address this question:
Currently Corpora Section IV. C. 2. which outlines that duties of Royalty within the kingdoms of the known world, states:
In the recent past there have been several occasions on which the Board of Directors have received requests to review and waive the requirements listed in Corpora for stated cause, such as absence due to military service or extreme illness.
The questions that the Board of Directors asks the members of the Grand Council to consider, discuss, and prepare a report on are: What quantifiable factors are absolutely necessary to be considered to have completed a reign and thereby be eligible for royal titles or peerages. What is the minimum that should be required? Is there a need to reword the applicable section of Corpora? What should be required to obtain a waiver of completed reign? Are there other issues to be considered?
After discussion, the general opinion of the Grand Council (without a vote) is that a list of circumstances could be both too broad and too narrow. As a whole, the Council felt that it is better for the Board to limit review to the most extreme cases and look at the individual circumstances of each case. Several cases were discussed by the Grand Council in the course of its discussion, including Prince Jafar*, King Andreas, and Queen Portia.
While no vote was taken, the GC members who responded approved of this proposed policy statement:
With relation to changing the requirements for completion of a reign, the Grand Council feels that the current rules are sufficient. The Grand Council suggests that no change should be made to Corpora, rather that the Board of Directors should continue to address each case brought to its attention on an individual basis.
A suggestion of possible elements for consideration did not fare as well. Members disagreed on which, or if any, would be relevant or provide adequate guidance. They are presented here for informational purposes only, and not to represent in any way a recommendation of the Grand Council:
Some Grand Council members felt the list was acceptable through Item #3. Others felt that since the Board asked for guidelines, it was appropriate to offer some or all of the above for consideration. As noted, they are unapproved and the source of contention.
TOPIC NOTE: In the last week before quarter-end, the Grand Council was sent the question of why Corpora provides for much harsher penalty if one of the Crowns allows his or her membership to lapse during the reign, than it does if the person is incapable of completing the reign. In the former instance, both members of the couple are deemed unable to complete the reign, while in the latter, the remaining member completes the reign and the other may have the requirements waived. Despite some contentious discussion of the issue and possible reasons for the disparity, no consensus was reached.
B. COMMITTEE STATUS AND COMMENDATIONS
Still waiting to hear from the Nominating Committee. The Chair=E2=80=99s son was born and congratulations issued. The GC took its usual break over Pennsic and nothing untoward occurred as far as the official record reflects.
C. PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY
The Grand Council discussed issues of reporting funds for the Non-Member Surcharge. It also discussed (at the Board=E2=80=99s request) whether the requirements for successful completion of a reign, as listed in Corpora, should be adjusted. The Grand Council believes the basic rules are adequate. The majority felt that requests for variance should continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, with a few members strongly stating that the list is absolute and no variance should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, etc.,
Margo Lynn Hablutzel, Esq.
SCA: Morgan Cain - #014527
Barony of Steppes, Ansteorra